Analysis of energy needs and energy intake with health status of field workers at PT. A

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: Work nutrition refers to the nutrient or food substance needed by the workforce to meet their needs according to the type of work. The aim of work nutrition is to increase the work power and health of the workforce as much as possible in accordance with the person’s nutritional status. The suitability of energy intake can also affect a person’s productivity Long-term energy consumption patterns can have an impact on a person’s health or nutritional status. If unchecked, they can also have an impact on their activities and productivity. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine the energy needs and energy intake associated with health status in field workers. Methods: This research used a quantitative approach with the type of observational research and a cross-sectional design. The population in this study was based on a total sample of workers at PT. A in the city of Samarinda, with a sample size of 41 workers. Results: The results of this study indicate that most workers have an abnormal nutritional status. Only 29% of the 41 workers have a normal nutritional status. Then, in the comparison between energy intake and energy needs, it is known from 41 workers that only 32% of respondents have sufficient energy in accordance with what is consumed. Conclusion: There is still a mismatch between energy intake and energy needs of the workers, and there are still many workers who have abnormal nutritional status. Therefore, it needs to be done, from socialization to supervision, such as implementing fitness at work, a healthy diet, adjusting workload, and getting enough rest.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sunaryo, M., Andini, A., Putri, P. H., Mulyadi, Sunaryo, N., & Widyanti, I. (2023). Analysis of energy needs and energy intake with health status of field workers at PT. A. Bali Medical Journal, 12(2), 1964–1966. https://doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v12i2.4321

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free